Tuesday, 26 January 2010

If you've eaten recently, don't click. It's our PM, Stevie the Spiteful, with an op-ed in the Star of all places.

The knee-slappingness of it:

Yet, it should not take a natural disaster to turn our attention to the less fortunate. The world's poor have been hit hardest by the global economic downturn and in these difficult times we must address their pressing needs.

Indeed, all too frequently, tragedy strikes those who can least afford it. The lack of the most basic services can lead to dire consequences, especially for the world's most vulnerable populations. Each year, it is estimated that 500,000 women lose their lives during pregnancy or childbirth. Further, an astonishing 9 million children die before their fifth birthday.

9 comments:

Well, FMe! NO KIDDING, Steve! Just noticed, have you? Janet - I am sickened, inordinately disgusted, & appalled. Did he write this himself, or have one of his drones whip it up. It has all the insight & originality of a brain-dead slug. Don't apologize for yelling, Jan! Let's ALL YELL!

Damn, there goes my blood pressure again! I'm not surprised that comments haven't been enabled for his opinion: he probably insisted on that. But holy jumpin batman on a pogostick!Hello... how about providing women with BIRTH CONTROL? And ABORTIONS?

And how can anyone, anyone anywhere, possibly think that Steven Scarper's agenda includes the poor and downtrodden?

the guy knows how to play the crowds!just the occasional slip, tho.Mothers and children to the front of the line.Play that mother/kid card now.slick strategist!Did anyone notice on the Hope for Haiti telethon, he was reading from the telepromper?He has no real heart to speak sincerely from.

Here's my question on a parallel line though. If Harper initially picked the topic of dirty bombs under pressure from the US and Russia, to fit their agenda...what part of the NEW topic has to do with pressure from the US? (I have a harder time thinking this is a change backed by Russia, colour me unfairly biased)

Or, are we expected to think that our PM dumped a topic close to the hearts and minds of the big dogs to go pick something that would make *him* look fuzzier to...someone out in er..Somewhere-Hockeyville.

Does that mean that if pushed hard enough by the prospect of losing governmental authority, PM Harper would actually find presenting himself hearteningly to Canadian voters more important than behind the scenes agenda pressure? And that he decided the welfare of women and children in the developing world would somehow manage that domestic display for him?

Past the initial wtf moment, I can't help but wonder what the angle here really is. Is he hoping to repurpose agendas of the neocon theocrats about abstinence etc tied to Aid that were undermined under the new US agenda?

Repurposing the abstinence BS would be perfect for Harpo's base. And wouldn't get him into too much trouble here. After all, it's just those poor people who can't have sex without risking disease and unwanted children.